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.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||10 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||380 times||Debate No:||93214|
Debate Rounds (3)
More info: https://www.theguardian.com...
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.
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.
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.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.