The Instigator
ReganFan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
50 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,956 times Debate No: 9281
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (8)

 

ReganFan

Con

Gay Marriage is a sin against God!

This video perfectly articulates my views.

Your move Pro.
Danielle

Pro

... I'm not amused. It's not even a funny video. So, let's move on to the arguments.

1) Gay marriage is immoral and a sin against God.

Irrelevant. Whatever god you might believe in should have no bearing on my legal rights.

2) Gay people like people of their own gender.

Wrong. Gay people like people of their own sex. And so what?

3) Gay people can't have children, so they adopt.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Children need good parents regardless of their sexual orientation.

4) Gay people only raise gay children, who in turn teach/promote gay sex, and everyone will turn gay.

Right. Gay people only raise gay children, the same way that straight people only raise straight children. Uh huh. Anyway, it intrigues me that my opponent seems to agree that people can be converted or coerced into homosexuality. I don't know about you, but I know plenty of straight men who regardless of their environment or company (lots of gay people) would never in a million years dream of sticking another man's penis up their butt.

5) Gay people go to Hell.

Even if Hell were real, I fail to see why that should matter. This is an earthly contract; not a fictional... er, religious one. Plus, it should be my right to take this chance; personal accountability means that my marriage won't affect yours in this life or the next.

6) Gay marriage is unfair to children.

Opposing gay marriage is unfair to adults.
Debate Round No. 1
ReganFan

Con

I would first like to ask my opponent to abstain from using such vulgar language young children use this site.

1) He did state that he believed that gay marriage was "Immoral and a sin against God" how every he only stated this as a personal belief of his and not as a reason to ban gay marriage.

2) Gay people to like people of there own Gender, Gender and sex refer to the same thing.

3) It is important for children to have proper family structure, when we look at inmates in Americans prisons a majority of them come from broken or single family homes.

4) When a gay child is born into a traditional family they often feel alienated and dirty and repress these feelings for years, who is to say that if a straight child is born into a same sex family, Traditional marriages encourage children to be straight and gay marriage encourages them to be gay.

5) He did not site this as fact but a personal opinion of his.

6) Life is not fair to anyone really
Danielle

Pro

I did not use any foul language in my previous round. The only thing that could possibly be considered foul might be Penis (which is the legitimate, proper term for the body part) and Butt which is a PG rated version of a word that rhymes with grass... but let me re-phrase for my sensitive opponent: I do not know any heterosexual man who would be willing to insert a penis up his anus/rectum for simply associating with gay people. Now, back to the debate.

1) If the person in the video wasn't using his belief that gay marriage is immoral and a sin against God as a reason to oppose gay marriage, then it's completely irrelevant to the debate. Moving on.

2) No, gender and sex are not the same thing. Sex refers to male/female identities, and gender refers to masculine and feminine identities. Typically males identify as masculine and females identify as feminine, but not always. Proof of this fact are people who are transgendered, or those who cross dress, accept nontraditional gender roles, etc. Additionally, this argument seems pretty irrelevant to the debate since my opponent did not discuss it at all except to say that sex and gender are synonymous, which they are clearly not. Here are a plethora of examples detailing how and why: http://www.google.com...

3) I agree that children should be raised in good homes with good families. However what is "proper" can be considered subjective. Plus, I don't see why gay people wouldn't make "proper" parents. Many already do. Regarding criminal activity, most prison inmates also come from low income families. Would it be better for a loving gay couple with a good home and who live in a good neighborhood to be parents, or a heterosexual couple who lives in poverty and has no scruples?

4) I jokingly stated that straight people always raise straight children, so gay people must always raise gay children. Con responded with, "Traditional marriages encourage children to be straight and gay marriage encourages them to be gay." He completely played into my mockery of an argument. The point here is that people are going to marry whom they love and want to spend their life (and legal rights) with, regardless of their gender. Even if a straight child is born into a gay family, they still have plenty of straight role model couples around both in the media, society, etc. Plus, I don't think they would alter their sexual orientation for the sake of imitating their parents.

5) Okay, so it's his opinion that gay people go to Hell. So what. Again, this is irrelevant to the debate.

6) I agree. Life isn't fair. But that doesn't mean we should not make changes wherever possible to rectify that sad reality.

In conclusion, I cited those arguments from the video because my opponent was apparently incapable of coming up with his own. Instead, he cited a shallow cartoon to depict how he feels about gay marriage. In reality, he hasn't put forth any (worthwhile) arguments, or anything of merit for me to respond to.
Debate Round No. 2
ReganFan

Con

Yes you did you descriptively explained how sex between gays is made possible that vulgar, even Alex_hanson911 was offended.
Definition of vulgar: lacking refinement or cultivation or taste
Source of Definition: http://www.google.ca...

2) Argument is really irrelevant its flagrantly obvious that the commentator in this video was explaining how a gay man would be attracted to a man and how a gay woman would be attracted to another woman, all you succeeded in doing is pointing out a venial technicality.

3) In nature animals and humans are parented by a family structure of one masculine member and a feminine member, this is not found within a same sex marriage. It would be better for a child to be born into poverty with a proper family structure than to have responsible gay parents. It is true what you pointed out about how a majority of those who are in prison grew up in poverty but a huge portion of those born in poverty ALSO lacked proper family structure.

4) It is true that sometimes straight people do raise gay children but it is also true that traditional marriage does encourage children to be straight, it is an often occurrence that children who are gay will go through enormous lengths to hide that they are gay, some of them even marrying a woman and having kids. Why would this different with a same sex couple?

6) Of course a Pro-Choicer like you would agree that the rights of babies are less important than everyone else. It is our job as a society is to look after those who are defenseless.
Danielle

Pro

I apologize if anyone on this site has been offended by my bland and blase description of gay sex. However, that has nothing to do with this debate.

Moving on, in noting that he was obviously wrong about sex and gender being synonymous, Con claims that I was merely playing up a semantical argument. However, the only reason I brought up that discrepancy in the first place is because I took everything that the video discussed to argue about and respond to it, since Con was too incompetent to post his own argument. He had to use a cartoon in order to appropriately express his views. Hmm.

Additionally, using the "nature" argument in this case is a bad choice. There are traditional heterosexual couples in the animal kingdom, but there are gay ones as well as people are now discovering such as the infamous gay penguins, Silo and Roy. Moreover, human beings are the epitome of the animal kingdom; there are a lot of things we do in this society that animals don't, and yet we are okay with these things. You cannot degrade the character and capacity of humans to that of wild animals. Some animals are cannibalistic; does that mean that it is the appropriate behavior to eat other human beings? Not to mention that homosexuality IS natural. If people are homosexual, then it comes naturally to them, meaning it's natural.

I personally cannot believe that my opponent had the audacity to say that it would be better for a child to be raised in an impoverished household by straight parents who have no scruples (morals) than by a loving gay couple in a good home. That is probably the most disgusting argument I have ever heard, and an example of pure bigotry. Clearly my opponent is so homophobic that he would rather a child SUFFER than be loved by gay parents... and then has the audacity to say that society is supposed to protect the defenseless. What a joke.

Finally, I don't see a point to my opponent's argument at all about a straight child "hiding" the fact that he's straight from his gay parents. Honestly, this is the most incompetent and ignorant debater I have ever encountered. Clearly those who hide the fact that they are gay from their straight parents do so because of their parents expectation of what SOCIETY finds traditional (the norm). This would not be the case in a gay household. Additionally, I already argued that even if a gay parent WAS "upset" that their child were straight.... which is very, VERY unlikely... that there would still be a plethora of straight role models for the child, AND this little tidbit really has absolutely NOTHING to do with the argument of gay MARRIAGE.

To conclude this debate, I'd like to point out that my opponent has clearly straw manned my argument in saying that I clearly do not care about the rights of babies. First of all, not only is that COMPLETELY irrelevant to this debate, but nowhere in this debate did I *ever* talk about babies, ever. What I said in the last round was that we should rectify the legal system to try and be as fair and just as possible, even though life itself tends to be "unfair." I fail to see how this has ANYTHING to do with abortion. Now my opponent is just being ridiculous.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that people who are ridiculously homophobic usually have a few sexual skeletons in their closet as well... pun intended. I hope that Con isn't so vehemently against homosexuality because he himself is a homosexual. That would be silly. Then again, this debate wasn't exactly the epitome of seriousness.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ReganFan 7 years ago
ReganFan
its not even a south park video
Posted by MrButtons22 7 years ago
MrButtons22
"I would first like to ask my opponent to abstain from using such vulgar language young children use this site."
ReganFan, you can't say that right after you put a South Park video up on the SAME EXACT PAGE.
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
Just perusing the comments section....LOL
Alex, I don't think you want all the possible ways to have sex explained to you.
"Even AlexHanson_911 was offended'.... one would care because?
Posted by Nu-cleur021 7 years ago
Nu-cleur021
*sigh* Wasn't heated enough. Horrible arguments. Con didn't do much.
Posted by MrButtons22 7 years ago
MrButtons22
This was a horrible debate, on both sides.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
"Oh and you can try and change the definition of marriage if you wish, but sex is NOT a penis and a butt"
LOL
"Sexual union between humans involving genital contact and/or penetration"
-MLA 2009

Sorry Alex, but sex IS a penis and a butt.
Posted by ReganFan 7 years ago
ReganFan
He called me ignorant, stupid fascist liberal
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
I didn't see that part in the debate. I never actually read it. Lol well now i read that part, but yeah before i hadn't. haha
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
I apologize, Alex... my opponent said that you were offended by my comment in R3 of the debate (see his argument). By no means am I trying to start a fight on the internet. I'm 22, not 12. Also, people have sex in a lot of ways... and the gay marriage argument isn't about changing the definition of the word marriage, but about granting equal rights to all people (including gay people). I can call a woman my wife right now or say that we are married and nobody can stop me. I couldn't care less if they call it gay marriage or gay hoozawhatchamacallit. I just want my rights. I'll call it marriage because the term itself has a certain implication in society, and because I personally feel the original definition is biased and should be amended (the same way the constitution has been amended many times to reflect the changes and progress of society).
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
"so, if the word "penis" really offends you that much, it's clearly indicative that yours is seriously lacking."

Lmfao. Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
ReganFanDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
ReganFanDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
ReganFanDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by JonathanCid 7 years ago
JonathanCid
ReganFanDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
ReganFanDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
ReganFanDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
ReganFanDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
ReganFanDanielleTied
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