The Instigator
BarbieSoFetch
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BenThompson
Pro (for)
Winning
5 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 1 vote the winner is...
BenThompson
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 714 times Debate No: 77390
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

BarbieSoFetch

Con

I believe gay marriage is wrong. Use whatever you want to prove to me that gay marriage is okay. The first round will be dedicated to stating on what our behalf of the argument will be on.

I will be debating on the behalf of gay marriage being wrong.
BenThompson

Pro

I believe that gay marriage is justified and should be allowed. I would like to argue that this issue is not a matter of whether you think gay marriage is wrong but rather a legal issue over whether your belief should affect the right that gay people should have to get married. I look forward to hearing your argument first and I will let you decide whether you want to debate the legalization of gay marriage or simply the idea of a gay couple getting married. I believe that I have convincing arguments for both topics and I will let you make your choice on what you want to debate.

Good luck and I look forward to reading your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
BarbieSoFetch

Con

Both I suppose, they are both relevant to one another.

First of all, being gay is wrong to start off. It goes against a lot of religions. I for one do not believe being gay is at all okay. In the Bible it clearly states that being gay is a sin and so on. It also states a woman and a man should get married.

How does this affect you though?
Homosexuals are shoving their beliefs down societies throats. The gay pride parade for one, the way they dress (feminine and masculine), and the most important reason, the meaning of marriage. Now that gay marriage has been legalized, the meaning has changed to include, "people of the same sex" getting married as well. It's offensive and shouldn't be taken lightly.

Gay marriage is a sin and the only reason it was legalized was because of the lawyers. They argued mainly about feelings.

And yes I do understand getting married means you have some exclusive rights, etc. But I do not thing homosexuals should have the right to those.
BenThompson

Pro

1. Cherry picking morals from the bible.
From a moral perspective you are suggesting that being gay in the first place is wrong which goes beyond the point of gay marriage and becomes pure bigotry. I would first like to make it clear that you stated that you get your morals on this issue from the bible and you have every right to do so, however just because your moral view of what is right conflicts with someone's view doesn't mean that your view is right and their view is wrong because your opinion was formed from your faith. For example in Leviticus ,the book in the bible that people cite to say that being gay is a sin, it also says that eating shellfish is a sin, eating pork is a sin, eating meat on the Sabbath is a sin, and wearing cloths with mixed materials (polyester) is a sin and that you will go to hell for breaking these moral laws. Clearly modern day Christians don't follow many of these laws that are outlined in this book of the bible so why can you cherry pick the verse about having sex with another man and say that it still applies to modern culture when you seem to ignore the laws outlined in Leviticus that actually affect your life such as what clothes you can wear and what food you can eat.
2. How does this affect you though?
This affects me in two ways, politically and morally. Politically I used to say that I was a republican but I disagree with republicans on most social issues as do most young people in America. I no longer consider myself a republican because the republican party is trying to play to their voter base by taking insane stances on moral issues. They should know not many young people will agree with their stance on these social issues but they are so afraid that they will lose their older voter base that they wont take the right stance on issues like this. From a moral perspective I see it as a form of oppression and I want to stand up for people who are being mistreated obviously you think of gay people as less valuable than straights but this isn't the case every human being has the same value they are human beings and every human being deserves the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. If you love someone you have the right to get married to them so that you can seal the bond that you have with that person and also so that you can have the same legal rights as other married couples when it comes to things like taxes and hospital visitation rights. Whether you think gay marriage is a sin or not you should at least come to the conclusion that as human beings gay people deserve the same rights as we do.
3. It really doesn't matter what the bible says about marriage because marriage existed long before the bible.
Marriage is not a Christian concept and existed long before Christianity came about. The idea that the biblical definition of marriage is the absolute correct definition of marriage is a flawed view that only exist because of religions way of incorporating cultural laws of the time which leads to a non progressive attitude towards morals. I would also like to point out that many Christians especially Catholics mainly due to the new pope are mostly fine with gay marriage. It is totally possible to be supportive of gay marriage and still believe in your faith.
4. "And yes I do understand getting married means you have some exclusive rights, etc. But I do not thing homosexuals should have the right to those."
The reason why I said that what you are saying sounds like bigotry stems from this comment. You openly admit that getting married gives you exclusive rights but you don't think gay people should be allowed to have those rights. In other words you are openly saying that gay people should have less rights than straight people and that is just wrong on so many levels. Jesus stood for the oppressed and those people who had been beaten down by the powerful so why would you argue that Christianity would support unequal rights regardless of whether you think being gay is a sin or not. It is honestly fairly rare to see a Christian opposed to equal rights considering that Christianity is supposed to be all about giving equal rights to those who are oppressed.
5. You say that the new definition of marriage offends you
the new definition of marriage: a contract between two people who love each other. I see nothing wrong with the "new definition of marriage". It doesn't matter if it offends you because peoples rights trump people feelings. If I were to say I am offended that black people can vote then I would be rightly labeled as a bigot. The same applies to you when you say that you are offended by gay marriage.
6. No one is shoving their beliefs down anyone's throat except for people like you.
Gay people getting married has no effect on you at all and wont impact you personally in any way. However you trying to use your personal beliefs to prevent people who are gay from getting married affects all gay couples because it prevents them from having rights that they deserve as citizens in America who are willing to get married.
Debate Round No. 2
BarbieSoFetch

Con

Okay, sorry I didn't respond right away. I didn't want to read all of what you said.

You are comparing sexuality to race and food. In the Bible, in Deuteronomy it states that you can eat everything. It also says that in Genesis. Also, I am cherry picking from the Bible because that is one of the most relevant things right now. This affects me because, "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship." is the meaning of marriage. And marriage has been around for a long time, but I doubt gay marriage was ever a thing. Also, if I ever had kids I would never want them around gay people. Not saying this is for all gays, but they dress improper. The fact that they are, "embracing their sexuality" in that way is odd.

Okay, so I am pretty sure you said something about love is love and if you love someone you should get married to them. I don't know. But it was something along those lines. Anyway, if you believe that then you must also believe, polygamy, and a dad marrying a daughter or a daughter marrying her mother (both over 18), or a brother marrying his sister. And don't bring up the deformed babies and blah blah blah. They can adopt and so on. Just knowing a man and a man could marry each other is just as difficult as knowing a relative could marry a relative.

Also, I am trying to help people. Being homosexual is just wrong. So, if I inform homos of Christianity and Catholicism, well then it's not shoving it down their throats. A lot of Christians and Catholics don't agree with being gay. Take the Christians who were putting up their signs that. "Homo Sex Is A Sin" or "God Hates F*gs". A lot of gays don't believe in God or Jesus Christ. So I don't see how Jesus accepting everyone is even relevant. They don't believe in him so, I find that an invalid argument.

Sorry if I spelled anything wrong.
BenThompson

Pro

"You are comparing sexuality to race and food."
I never compared sexuality to food I compared the fact that you don't follow the rules in that book of the bible about food and clothing to the fact that you do take the rule in that book about gays seriously.
"In Deuteronomy it states that you can eat everything."
This is actually correct in Deuteronomy it does say that you can eat anything but it also says in Leviticus that you can't eat many types of things from cats to camels to shell fish. This just shows a contradiction in the bible and is no surprise to me but contradictions in the bible is for another debate.
Cherry picking.
To clarify what I mean by cherry picking I am talking about when you take one rule in the bible seriously but not the rule written right next to it. You ignore the rules about shell fish and such because it isn't a relevant rule anymore so people don't talk about it or follow it. I doesn't mean that it isn't ok for you to reference the bible as it is totally relevant to your argument.
The meaning of marriage and how people dress
Your meaning of marriage doesn't matter because your definition of marriage is not a legal one it is a biblical which has no relevance to the law of the United States of America because of separation of church and state. The legal definition of eligible to vote used to not include women or blacks but that doesn't mean that the old definition was correct just because it was the old definition. How people dress shouldn't matter it is a free country and everyone can dress however they want to. Would you want the government telling you that you can't get married because they don't like the way you dress?
The slippery slope
This debate is not about incest or polygamy. They are completely different topics and could be debated another time. The slippery slop argument is also a logical fallacy.http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
Also, I am trying to help people
Yof don't help people by taking away their right to marry. Also not as many as you think are against gay marriage as even the pope has said "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?".
http://www.npr.org...

I urge you as a catholic to listen to your infallible pope in this situation.
Thanks again for not taking the time to read my argument. "sorry I didn't respond right away. I didn't want to read all of what you said." "Okay, so I am pretty sure you said something about love is love"
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BarbieSoFetch 1 year ago
BarbieSoFetch
Actually, I said a chapter. Romans and Leviticus. I think that is good enough. My opponent did that as well too.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: Siladheil// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Comments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains both of their point allocations. He examines several specific arguments given in the debate, and has even taken the time outside of his vote to justify the source points further.
******************************************************************************
Posted by Siladheil 1 year ago
Siladheil
You failed to type a specific scripture or verse. You can't just say, "the bible" and have it back up every little thing you say it says.
Posted by BarbieSoFetch 1 year ago
BarbieSoFetch
Actually I did back it up. The source I used was the Bible. Old Testament and New. @Siladheil
Posted by Siladheil 1 year ago
Siladheil
Somehow my vote in the comments was out of order. it's supposed to be:

Since my previous...

(1)

(2)

As the voter...
Posted by Siladheil 1 year ago
Siladheil
Since my previous vote was removed, I shall place a new vote and explain in more detail as to why I placed my vote.

(1) Who made more convincing arguments? As the reader, I am entitled to my own opinion as to who made the better votes while attempting to maintain as much as an unbiased stance as possible. I feel that Pro had better arguments by using logic and backing up his logic with sources and follow on sentences. For example, "Marriage is not a Christian concept and existed long before Christianity came about. The idea that the biblical definition of marriage is the absolute correct definition of marriage is a flawed view that only exist because of religions way of incorporating cultural laws of the time which leads to a non progressive attitude towards morals." An example of when I found that pro's argument was lacking in depth or structure is, "First of all, being gay is wrong to start off. It goes against a lot of religions. I for one do not believe being gay is at all okay. In the Bible it clearly states that being gay is a sin and so on. It also states a woman and a man should get married." This is very vaguely written and lacks the depth that I would expect to find on a debate regarding gay marriage.

As the voter, it is my right to vote how I believe the debate was conducted and I stand by my decision that Pro won this debate hands down.

(2) Who used more reliable sources? Again, as the reader, I am entitled to my opinion as to who used the better sources. Con did not use a single source to back up her claim that Gay Marriage was wrong. Since Pro used sources to help the reader understand his point, I automatically awarded the sources points to Pro.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: HermanGomez// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro was overall more organized in his debate. He used better sources and provided a more logical conclusion.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) No explanation for any points awarded besides sources. Saying that one side "provided a more logical conclusion" is insufficient to show how the voter reached that conclusion using the arguments presented in the debate. (2) It is not clear how organization impacted this voter's decisions to allocate points on any level. (3) Sources: the voter must do more than simply assert that one side had better sources in order to allocate these points. Reasoning must be given as to why those sources are better and how that warrants the vote.
***************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: sherlockholmesfan2798// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro is the obvious victor in this debate. Not because Con had an idea that isn't politically correct, but because her arguments were unorganized and weak. Con quickly jumped from one issue to another, without backing up any of them. For example,her polygamy argument never stated what was wrong, she simply said it was, and expected us to follow. this belief. Con also derailed from the topic she chose, instead trying to make us believe homosexuality is wrong, not specifically the marriage. Pro however stuck to the topic at hand, and had much more organized arguments. The clear winner is Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) No explanation for any points aside from arguments. Merely stating that one side is more organized does not suffice as a reason to allocate any of these, there is no clear indication that "derailing from the topic" or any of these other specifics impacted conduct, and there was no evaluation of sources to any degree. (2) Arguments: this portion of the vote is unclear. The voter points to a single argument made by Con as a reason to vote Pro, but that doesn't justify the vote. The weakness of Con's argument doesn't explain the strength of Pro's. Merely sticking to the topic and being more organized do not suffice as reasons to allocate argument points.
***************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: Siladheil// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Rare 7 point win to Pro. Conduct: Pro had the better conduct, as he didn't break any rules and was polite throughout the entire debate, where as Con stated that she didn't read Pro's argument. S&G: This also goes to Pro as there were fewer errors as compared to Con. Convincing Arguments: This also goes to Pro due to the evidence brought forth where as Con only argued opinions and contradicted herself. Sources: Pro was the only to use sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct: It is unclear from this vote which rules Con broke and where they were established. The voter also misinterprets Con, who said that she didn't want to read her opponent's arguments, not that she didn't read them. (2) S&G: The analysis here is vague, not explaining what about Con's arguments made them more difficult to read. Minimal differences in S&G between the two debaters does not suffice for allocating this point. (3) Arguments: The voter provides no specifics with regards to any individual arguments and their faults. This analysis is overgeneralized and could apply to most any debate. It's also not clear why support for arguments made the difference in this debate " evidence may affect the validity of the arguments, but a lack of it doesn't justify their dismissal. (4) Sources: Insufficient reasoning. Doesn't explain why Pro's source support tilted the debate in his favor or even why the sources were relevant at all. When awarding sources, an RFD must show why there was a significant difference in source from both debaters and *why* this difference impacted the outcome of the debate.
***************************************************************************
Posted by BarbieSoFetch 1 year ago
BarbieSoFetch
P.S. I do know what cherry picking means. Sorry if my responses were sloppy I had just got done with playing COD and it was late and I didn't want this debate to be "unimportant". One thing I forgot to mention was that I don't think you have been with Christianity or Catholicism. You didn't mention a lot of things. Now, I had a feeling you were going to mention the clothing material and food. But isn't that kinda irrelevant. It wasn't what we were debating on. And if it is, then how would polygamy and incest be irrelevant? Just like where you pulled your food and clothing material statement was the same place it said being gay was wrong. In the same place it says being gay is wrong (Romans), it also talks about monogamy, incest and beastiality. Is this making sense? Basically what I am saying is I think that is invalid and if you consider it not to be, then my polygamy and incest thing is valid. I don't know if you saying , "no that is wrong" would've changed anything. Because you obviously agree with it all.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Siladheil 1 year ago
Siladheil
BarbieSoFetchBenThompsonTied
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: RFD