The Instigator
TobyJohnScanlon1
Pro (for)
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
TobyJohnScanlon1 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 267 times Debate No: 93214
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

TobyJohnScanlon1

Pro

I think gay marriage should be allowed, because it's not harming straight people. Banning gays marring each other will not make them straight, so we might as well as allow them to marry. Also, everybody should have the right to marry, so only allowing people who marry to be straight is just unfair. Also for the people who say that 'Becuz teh biball sed so we shouldaint allow dam gays to marry meens tey shouldaint marry', the bible never condemned gay marriage, it only said 'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.' (Leviticus 18:22) and 'A man who has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' (Leviticus 20:13). These only say that gay sex is a sin, no gay marriage. Some gays marry and do not have sex, because they don't like it. Also, the pope said in an interview"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" Also, I think that the bible is not a good enough argument- even if it is all true, gay marriage might still be allowed, because of the pope's neutral stance on it.

Sources: https://www.biblegateway.com...

https://www.biblegateway.com...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

More info: https://www.theguardian.com...
harrytruman

Con

Public nudity hurts no one, yet if you do it you go to jail, what an injustice!

And your argument that not acknowledging gay marriage is discrimination is utter nonsense, you aren't saying that because you are gay you can't marry, all that is happening is two people want to "marry" each other, but they can't because it wouldn't be marriage, we don't really care who they are attracted to, a traditional marriage system would allow for 1 man to marry 1 woman, wanting something other than what is facilitated doesn't entitle you to anything.

And according to you a man marrying little kids would be acceptable because only pedophilia is banned, not pedophile marriage. And I couldn't care less what the pope says, he also thinks that global warming is a national security crisis while hundreds of thousands of terrorists flooding Europe isn't, in fact he thinks we should bring over MORE terrorists!

And another thing, the environment is never granted the power to define marriage, and according to the 10th amendment this power should be granted to the states respectively or to the people, I believe it should be granted to the people the church and marriage should be privatized. Gay marriage is just flat out stupid, all that's happening is a couple of perverts pay hundreds of dollars for a piece of paper ad that they could pay extra taxes for the rest of their lives, its stupid, you don't need some paper to live together, and paying more taxes isn't going to help your marriage.
Debate Round No. 1
TobyJohnScanlon1

Pro

Public Nudity is banned because many religions, including Christianity and Islam, label it as a sin. As Christianity and Islam have huge areas of influence around the world, any culture allowing Public nudity would be condemned by the religion with the most influence. Christianity heavily affects western law so that's why Gay Marriage was banned for so long. Personally I think public nudity should be allowed in where I live, Britain, because if people want to go in public naked than that's their choice.

I don't particularly understand your second paragraph. Lots of people who are against gay marriage are also against members of the LGBT community serving in the armed forces, which is literally denying rights to people based on their sexuality- almost the dictionary definition of discrimination (discrimination: treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.: ). Your point about if two men want to marry it wouldn't be 'marriage' is stupid- Marriage, in the western world, is this: legally accepted relationship between two people in which they live together, or the official ceremony that results in this. If you ban two adult consenting people from marrying because they share the same gender, then it is similar to banning people two consenting adults of the same gender- unfair and Immoral.

Your third paragraph makes no sense as well. I think paedophilia should be banned, like every other functioning society. And unlike being gay, paedophilia is illegal in the USA. Also, 99.99% percent of the time, a child wouldn't consent to marring an adult, and no one in their right mind would force their child to do it, so my logic is perfectly intact. Also, your point about the pope is also stupid- Global warming has the threat to wipe out the human race entirely, no it is a national security crisis. And your point about the pope wanting to let in 'Hundreds of thousands of terrorists' is retarded- nearly every immigrant let into Europe has no affiliation with a terrorist group at all. And I haven't heard any news stories about the pope saying that we should let in terrorists. Muslims maybe, but if you have half a brain cell you know that there is a difference between a Muslim and a terrorist.

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'the environment is never granted the power to define marriage' is confusing. Why would the environment care about human marriages? And the 10th amendment only has influence in the US- lots of other countries have a very different system. And your point about how marriage should be privatised is overruled by the fact that the US supreme court legalised Gay marriage nation-wide- America must follow some rules in every state, and legalised gay marriage should be one of them. Also your point of Gay marriage being ' couple of perverts pay hundreds of dollars for a piece of paper ad that they could pay extra taxes for the rest of their lives' could be applied to traditional marriage. In fact, you're basically calling the idea of traditional marriage, and idea you defended earlier in the argument stupid.

Sources: http://www.masjidtucson.org...
http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
http://dictionary.cambridge.org....
harrytruman

Con

Really? Public nudity? Next thing you liberals are gong to at that pefophilia is OK because that's someone's choice. I actually proposed unlic nudity so you could say how ridiculous it is, but apparently you believe that it is OK. Truth be tod

Either way, just because the government decides what marriage is doesn't mean anything, if there was a big pile if Bull Sh*t and government passed a law saying that it was an ice cream Sunday it's still a pile of bull sh*t, a law saying otherwise doesn't change anything. And in the constitution, nowhere Is the federal government given the power to define marriage, under the tenth amendment this power should be given to the states or to the people.

And really, you got to be kidding me, Germany has these scrum running rampant raping people, and Muslim=terrorists, read the Quran, and global warming is stupid, in 100 years the temperature goes up by 1 degree, that's not going to while out the human race, that's stupid. And you want to know what else, this terrorist issue got so bad that the Dali lama said we should prevent Muslims from entering Europe, the Dali Lama, you should listen to him.

The government is never granted the power to define marriage, not the environment. Also, I couldn't care less about what the supreme court says, it is never granted that power. Their edict is void it's not a law.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 5 months ago
missmedic
Most homophobic people are religious and or male teens.
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
Posted by harrytruman 5 months ago
harrytruman
Sounds liberal.
Posted by missmedic 5 months ago
missmedic
Sounds homophobic.
Posted by harrytruman 5 months ago
harrytruman
Sounds libertarian.
Posted by ryan7ful 5 months ago
ryan7ful
Gay married couples should not receive government benefits for being married. The entire point of these benefits were to encourage men and women to get married and have children, and since gay couples cannot achieve this, they should not receive government benefits. I believe that gay marriage should be allowed but the government should have nothing to do with marriage in the first place whether it be gay or straight.
Posted by harrytruman 5 months ago
harrytruman
No
Posted by Megatronimus_prime 5 months ago
Megatronimus_prime
Everyone deserves basic freedoms. Being able to marry who you want should be part of those freedoms
Posted by harrytruman 5 months ago
harrytruman
A lot of my argument was deleted.
Posted by missmedic 5 months ago
missmedic
Besides love and companionship, there are many benefits to marriage, especially in the eyes of the law. In fact, there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage. This is one of the reasons that the law was decided at federal level and not the state level.
Should the rights and freedoms given to all Americans be denied from a select group because of someone else's beliefs?
Posted by liam2002 5 months ago
liam2002
I agree with PRO
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.