The Instigator
Ashley17
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
studentathletechristian8
Con (against)
Winning
64 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,724 times Debate No: 9435
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (13)

 

Ashley17

Pro

I have no problem with gay marriages because I think the president has no right to tell someone who can and or whom they can't marry. It's the same as saying the opposite sex can't get married. I think it's unfair to those people because this is a "free" country and if marrying the same sex is what you want than I approve, but they need to have boundaries. I think in public they shouldn't display acts of affection to one another while kids are present because than they start thinking all kinds of things. Kids are going to be asking questions and wanting to try it and that's not how it should be, they have to choose if they want to get into those kind of relationships when their older.
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate and the readers for an opportunity.

My opponent's opening argument is confusing and contradictory. She states that gay marriage should be allowed and does not deserve to be denied under the power of the president. She continues by supporting gay marriage with her belief that America is a "free" country and that there is nothing wrong with people of the same sex becoming married to one another.
However, my opponent then states that gay marriage should have boundaries: she believes gays who are married should not show public displays of affection because it would have a negative impact on children and their future sexual orientation.

My opponent supports gay marriage, which means she would consequently support gays who are married showing public displays of affection. Heterosexual married couples show public displays of affection all the time. If my opponent really supported gay marriage and feels it wrong to deny gays the right to marriage, then she would be accepting of married gays giving public displays of affection. Her argument is contradictory and goes against her side of this debate topic.

Further, I would simply like to state that my opponent has yet to really support her side of the argument. She supports gay marriage, but does not want married gays to show displays of affection in public. My opponent brings little to none argumentation on why gays should be married. She just gives her beliefs without any proof or logic as to why we should support gay marriage.

I would ask my opponent to clarify her side of this debate. She has created a confusing and contradictory opening argument. Once again, my opponent has not really brought up valid arguments and has yet to provide any logic or reasoning as to why gay marriage should be supported. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Ashley17

Pro

I am with Gay marriage, not against, and I apologize for the inconvience and my lack of discription. So, what's the big deal? If two people love each other, shouldn't they be allowed the same rights, privileges and responsibilities, no matter their genders? Yet, marriage is so much greater than the commitment of two people to each other. Marriage is an institution that much of our culture revolves around. It is also an institution that is in crisis.
And then there's the whole issue of the children. Some argue that children are better off raised in a male-female headed household. Whether there is truth to that argument or not, is not the point. Many couples will marry and not have children: gay and straight. Gay and lesbian couples are having children already without the benefit of marriage. So are single moms, teenagers and drug addicts. Preventing a loving same sex couple from making a legal commitment to each other can only hurt their children. It can send a message, like it did in the case of one Massachusetts couple, that mommy and mommy don't really love each other, because if they did, they would get married. How do you explain the legal system to a five year old?

Some churches oppose same-sex marriage. Yet some, like the Unitarians and Metropolitan Community Church, bless gay marriages and perform commitment ceremonies. The Episcopalians are debating the issue right now. Whatever they decide does not and should not matter. Separation of church and state is essential to the freedom we enjoy as Americans. It is also the value our Constitution was based upon.

B) Same-Sex Marriage Provides a More Stable Environment for Children of Lesbian and Gay Couples

Some critics of same-sex marriage argue that the purpose of marriage is to provide institutional support for childrearing and that lesbian and gay couples, who (like infertile heterosexual couples) cannot biologically produce children by way of each other, would have no need of this institutional support. But the truth is that, according to the 2000 Census, 96 percent of U.S. counties--no matter how remote, no matter how conservative--have at least one same-sex couple with a child. However one may feel about this, it's happening now--and if the legal institution of marriage is good for the children of heterosexual parents, why should the children of lesbian and gay couples be punished by their government simply because of the sexual orientation of their parents?

C) Kindness is a Moral Value

But in the final analysis, the single best reason to legalize same-sex marriage is not because it's benign, or because it is inevitable, or because it is what our legal history demands of us, or because it is more conducive to family life. It is because legalizing same-sex marriage is the kind thing to do.

I am constantly amazed at what lesbian and gay couples tell me about the friendships they have with social conservatives have very traditional ideas of what a relationship should be, but who nevertheless treat them with great kindness, generosity, and warmth. Likewise, nearly every conservative critic of same-sex marriage will happily admit that they have close lesbian and gay friends whom they care deeply about.

Same-sex couples seeking marriage rights are obviously determined to stay together, or they wouldn't be trying to get married. So why make their lives more difficult? I feel confident that most conservatives wouldn't slash gay couples' tires, or kick over their mailboxes, or prank call them at 3am. So why pass laws that will prevent them from being able to file income taxes jointly, or visit each other in the hospital, or inherit one another's property? Social conservatives routinely speak of their moral obligation to promote legislation that upholds the values they live by. When that becomes a reality, the very kind and loving people who make up the majority of social conservatives in this country will be among those working to help their lesbian and gay neighbors, rather than working to make their lives more difficult.
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate and the readers for an opportunity.

First, I would like to state that my opponent has essentially copied all of her argumentation from online sources. This is a serious accusation, but I have the sources to prove it. She has done the old "copy-and-paste" trick and has literally taken all of her arguments verbatim from online websites. My opponent makes it quite obvious by creating an opening argument containing many grammatical errors and then exhibiting a major improvement in sentence fluency in her second round. Here is the proof:

My opponent stated: "And then there's the whole issue of the children. Some argue that children are better off raised in a male-female headed household. Whether there is truth to that argument or not, is not the point. Many couples will marry and not have children: gay and straight. Gay and lesbian couples are having children already without the benefit of marriage. So are single moms, teenagers and drug addicts. Preventing a loving same sex couple from making a legal commitment to each other can only hurt their children. It can send a message, like it did in the case of one Massachusetts couple, that mommy and mommy don't really love each other, because if they did, they would get married. How do you explain the legal system to a five year old?

Some churches oppose same-sex marriage. Yet some, like the Unitarians and Metropolitan Community Church, bless gay marriages and perform commitment ceremonies. The Episcopalians are debating the issue right now. Whatever they decide does not and should not matter. Separation of church and state is essential to the freedom we enjoy as Americans. It is also the value our Constitution was based upon."

This argument is taken directly from: http://lesbianlife.about.com...
(The readers may have to scroll down a little bit)

My opponent then states: "B) Same-Sex Marriage Provides a More Stable Environment for Children of Lesbian and Gay Couples

Some critics of same-sex marriage argue that the purpose of marriage is to provide institutional support for childrearing and that lesbian and gay couples, who (like infertile heterosexual couples) cannot biologically produce children by way of each other, would have no need of this institutional support. But the truth is that, according to the 2000 Census, 96 percent of U.S. counties--no matter how remote, no matter how conservative--have at least one same-sex couple with a child. However one may feel about this, it's happening now--and if the legal institution of marriage is good for the children of heterosexual parents, why should the children of lesbian and gay couples be punished by their government simply because of the sexual orientation of their parents?"

This argument is directly copied from: http://civilliberty.about.com...
(The argument is shown at the top of the provided website)

My opponent finally states: "C) Kindness is a Moral Value

But in the final analysis, the single best reason to legalize same-sex marriage is not because it's benign, or because it is inevitable, or because it is what our legal history demands of us, or because it is more conducive to family life. It is because legalizing same-sex marriage is the kind thing to do.

I am constantly amazed at what lesbian and gay couples tell me about the friendships they have with social conservatives have very traditional ideas of what a relationship should be, but who nevertheless treat them with great kindness, generosity, and warmth. Likewise, nearly every conservative critic of same-sex marriage will happily admit that they have close lesbian and gay friends whom they care deeply about.

Same-sex couples seeking marriage rights are obviously determined to stay together, or they wouldn't be trying to get married. So why make their lives more difficult? I feel confident that most conservatives wouldn't slash gay couples' tires, or kick over their mailboxes, or prank call them at 3am. So why pass laws that will prevent them from being able to file income taxes jointly, or visit each other in the hospital, or inherit one another's property? Social conservatives routinely speak of their moral obligation to promote legislation that upholds the values they live by. When that becomes a reality, the very kind and loving people who make up the majority of social conservatives in this country will be among those working to help their lesbian and gay neighbors, rather than working to make their lives more difficult."

This argument is direclty copied from: http://civilliberty.about.com...
(The readers should scroll down to about mid-page to see it)

My opponent has copied directly from online sources and has not created any of her own argumentation. I have provided the sources from which my opponent copied her arguments verbatim. My opponent has cheated this debate by attempting to plagiarize, without even quoting the sources she stole her information from. I urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Ashley17

Pro

When I used my own opinion, you stated that I need FACTS and RESOURCES! I don't think retrieving facts from the internet is an issue, because everything has to come from a resource. I found the statements that I wanted and got it from the internet, you did say that I needed resources. Yes! I have taken it from the internet but if that an issue? You states that I needed resources, unfortuntley I forgot to put quotes.
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate and the readers for another opportunity.

I shall quote my opponent and provide argumentation:

"When I used my own opinion, you stated that I need FACTS and RESOURCES!"
This is not true. All I stated was that my opponent needed valid argumentation and logic. I implied that my opponent should provide facts and resources to support her own arguments, but my opponent just copied exact arguments from websites. My opponent needed to back her own arguments with resources and facts, not just copy all of her arguments from websites.

"I don't think retrieving facts from the internet is an issue, because everything has to come from a resource. I found the statements that I wanted and got it from the internet, you did say that I needed resources."
My opponent does not understand that it is wrong to copy all of one's arguments directly from online sources, which is considered cheating/plagiarizing. My opponent failed to quote or even provide the sources of the websites she stole her information from. The fact is, it is acceptable to support your statements with evidence found online, but it is unacceptable to take all of your arguments from online without even telling the audience what you did. My opponent needed resources to provide evidence for her side of the debate, not to copy from and ultimately tarnish a possible successful debate.

"Yes! I have taken it from the internet but if that an issue? You states that I needed resources, unfortuntley I forgot to put quotes."
In my opponent's case, it is a big issue because she took all of her arguments directly from online sources. She did not even bother to source the sites where she got the information from. My opponent needed sources to provide support for her arguments, not to plagiarize whole chunks of paragraphs from sources that were not even mentioned until I found them.

Clearly, my opponent has been caught stealing and plagiarizing from online sources. Providing little to none argumentation from her own self, I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 17 records.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 4 years ago
studentathletechristian8
We have the right to the pursuit of happiness as long as it does not go against the will of the majority. That is the key. Another seven-point V-bomb is unappreciated, debatenewbie.
Posted by Debatenewbie14 4 years ago
Debatenewbie14
i love commenting on this types of debates so if you dont mind I would like to share my opion
first what right do we as people have to say that two people that love each other can not be married. For it doesnt say in the consitution or the bill of rights of this country say that they can not but it does say that they have the right to presue happiness. For is this makes them happy we as citizens of this country have no right to say other wise. For we up hold to that very saying
Posted by Ashley17 4 years ago
Ashley17
That was an accident, I just found out this website today and I've never had a debate before unless it's wiht my friends, I was trying this, so please forgive me for not knowing, am not used to this, it's my first day. Am intertested in debate though, I love argueing but the whole part about resources is very arragvating.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 4 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Why did my opponent give herself seven points?
Posted by studentathletechristian8 4 years ago
studentathletechristian8
I would enjoy a debate with you, but I cannot fit it into my schedule this week.
Posted by untitled_entity 4 years ago
untitled_entity
I really hate doing this...a lot. By the way, about.com's lesbian life section is quite great.

RFD:
B/A : PRO/PRO
Conduct : CON. Pro plagiarized.
Spelling and Grammar : TIE.
Arg. : CON. Again, pro plagiarized.
Sources : CON. He had sources.

Matt, I'd be willing to debate you on this if you'd like a real debate.
Posted by Xer 4 years ago
Xer
B/A: I don't care really.
Conduct: CON - Pro plagiarized.
S&G: TIED
CA: CON - Pro plagiarized.
RS: CON - Pro plagiarized and didn't even cite her plagiarization.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Debatenewbie14 4 years ago
Debatenewbie14
Ashley17studentathletechristian8Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Ashley17 4 years ago
Ashley17
Ashley17studentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Terraforcer 4 years ago
Terraforcer
Ashley17studentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by evdebs 4 years ago
evdebs
Ashley17studentathletechristian8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 NDWolfwood5268 4 years ago
NDWolfwood5268
Ashley17studentathletechristian8Tied
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 philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
Ashley17studentathletechristian8Tied
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 hariisen 4 years ago
hariisen
Ashley17studentathletechristian8Tied
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 4 years ago
Maikuru
Ashley17studentathletechristian8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 untitled_entity 4 years ago
untitled_entity
Ashley17studentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by atheistman 4 years ago
atheistman
Ashley17studentathletechristian8Tied
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:70